Cain, No; Gingrich, Yes
The principal value of last night's discussion between Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich was the presentation of a study in superficial contrasts and basic unities.
The two couldn't be more different in terms of skin color, professional background, and rhetorical technique. Of the two, only Gingrich has the qualifications to be the next president of the United States. Remember qualifications?
Cain is likeable, smart, and highly accomplished. His drawl is part of his genetic material, not a minstrel show device hauled out when the occasion calls for it. However, as genuine as he is, he has recently demonstrated a disqualifying lack of experience in dealing with a wide range of issues, from personal scandal, to media relations, to international affairs. His handling of the new harassment issue has been so maladroit as to make the truthfulness of the underlying charges virtually irrelevant.
Cain's remarkable ascendency in the polls and his appearance last night have promoted, perhaps most significantly, the cause of bringing Gingrich to the fore. Gingrich's lack of poll prominence has been a bit of a mystery, a mystery that last night's discussion may well serve to solve and remove as a problem.
In any case, last night's event was much more than a nicey-nicey feeling out for a ticket possibility. The program underscored the total failure of Obama and his happy band of collectivists to serve his country.
Cain dramatizes Obama's lack of understanding of the commercial underpinnings that made the United States the most powerful country in the world. Gingrich reminds us of the morbidity of the philosophical premises that so relentlessly guide our current president.
Add to Gingrich's crown his observation that there is not a single contender for the forthcoming Republican nomination that would not represent a respite from the damage that Barack Obama has done to his country and you have real hope for change.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
baltimore aureole
David McClain
Bruce Majors
Arthur Louis
Stephen Guy Hardin
natalia pizano
Salon.com
Comments
It would still seem to me that it is Perry-Romney, or vice versa, as to Cain, although, it is an odd time we live in, and, there are a lot of Tea Party people who really, really like him, just from casual observations, and his life story is compelling. It still struck me that if it was an ordinary sort of year, that Romney would have the "been there done that" vetting in terms of having run in 2008 that Republicans often go for, like with Dole in 96 in many ways, or that Perry would bring on a "Bring W back" enthusiasm, since a lot of Republicans liked and still like him. I missed the Palin thing alas, and now owe P.J. O'Rourke a beer.
Thanks for the interesting observations. It will be quite a primary and general election.
For one thing it solves "the three times you're out " possibility involved in having a true conservative emerge late in the game and get beat. I'm thinking of Goldwater and McCain.
Gingrich would no doubt try to be condescending , but I think Romney is strong enough and wise enough to give Newt real significance in office.
Thanks for the suggestion and the input.